Corrections are separated by category
Funding, affiliations, and equal contribution are addressed in distinct paragraphs, making the intended categories of change easy to identify.
↳ Full text, paragraphs 1–3
Limitation: This content is identified as Editorial / Commentary. Evaluation of this content might be partial, and should be treated as indicative.
Abstract
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301909.].
Key Claims
Primary findingTentative
The funding statement for this paper is incorrect.
the incomplete replacement wording prevents confirmation of the full corrected funding statement
Full text, paragraph 1
SecondarySupported
The affiliations for the first and second authors are also incorrect.
specific replacement affiliations are supplied for both affected authors
Full text, paragraph 2
SecondarySupported
The first two authors, Jianxiao Du and Yajie [Author], should be noted as contributing equally to this work.
the notice directly specifies the contributorship amendment for the named authors
Full text, paragraph 3
Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.
Strengths · Limitations
Strengths
Corrected affiliations are explicitly listed
The notice provides a numbered author and institutional affiliation list rather than merely stating that the original affiliations were wrong.
↳ Full text, paragraph 2 and affiliation list
Original article is directly traceable
The abstract supplies the DOI of the article being corrected, clearly delimiting the notice's scope.
↳ Abstract
Limitations
Funding correction remains incomplete
The funding replacement begins with “GD24YYJ09)” and continues as a sentence fragment, preventing reconstruction of the complete corrected funding statement.
↳ Full text, paragraph 1
Author placeholders remain unresolved
“Yajie [Author]” appears in the affiliation and equal-contribution corrections even though the affiliation list gives the full name Yajie Han.
↳ Full text, paragraphs 2 and 3
No substantive knowledge advance
The notice changes metadata for a single publication but reports no scientific claim, method, evidence, or synthesis concerning the underlying research topic.
↳ Full text, entire document
Nabu Commentary
The notice has a legitimate but narrow function: it amends funding, affiliations, and equal-contribution metadata for the article identified in the abstract. Its sequence and explicit affiliation list make most changes straightforward to follow. However, the funding correction begins mid-statement, and “[Author]” placeholders remain in two corrections, lowering both craft and clarity. Because the document contains no scientific argument or findings, its contribution is confined to publication-record maintenance and its impact-potential components are not applicable.
Check another paper
Author Note / Field Feedback
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Are you an author of this paper?
Dimension breakdown
Study Quality
Limited2.8
Confidence mediumContribution
2.5
The notice makes a narrow contribution by correcting funding, affiliations, and equal-contribution metadata for one article. It adds no empirical, theoretical, or synthetic knowledge, so its contribution remains at the bottom of the limited-contribution band.
Full text, paragraphs 1–3
“The affiliations for the first and second authors are also incorrect.”
Methodological Rigour
2.9
The notice separates the funding, affiliation, and contributorship changes in a purpose-appropriate sequence. Execution is reduced by the incomplete funding sentence and recurring author placeholder.
Full text, paragraphs 1–3
“GD24YYJ09), and the Zhuhai Philosophy and Social Science Foundation”
Reporting
3.1
The affiliation list and equal-contribution correction are readily identifiable, and the corrected article is linked by DOI. The funding fragment and “Yajie [Author]” placeholders prevent the notice from being fully precise.
Abstract; Full text, paragraphs 1–3
“Jianxiao Du1, Yajie Han2, Xiaoyu Cui3”
Positioning
2.9
The abstract identifies the corrected article by DOI, and the body specifies the categories of metadata being amended. The notice offers no provenance for the changes, although extensive literature positioning is not expected for this document type.
Abstract; Full text, paragraphs 1–3
“This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301909.”
Reliability
Caveats4 of 4 checks
Internal CoherenceNoted
The correction's overall purpose is coherent, but parts of the corrected metadata remain incompletely presented. The funding language is truncated, and an author-name placeholder remains despite the full name appearing later.
Research ConductClean
The notice reports no research procedures, datasets, images, ethics claims, registration, or availability statements requiring conduct assessment. It introduces no research-conduct concern.
Flags: 0 declared / 5 total
Reference IntegrityClean
1 of 1 checkable references verified
1 reference in manuscript
Post-Publication RecordClean
No retraction notice found in Retraction Watch.
Last checked: 07 Sep 2026
Sources: Retraction Watch ✓
Readiness
Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.
Not assessed
Not assessed — the paper does not report enough for a readiness position.
Readiness is not applicable because there is no finding to move from observation toward deployment. Publication of the notice is itself the administrative action.
Full text, paragraphs 1–3
AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.